Category Archives: Conservatism

UPDATE III (7/26): Sacha Baron Cohen On Arming Toddlers: ‘My Son, May He Rest in Peace, Was In The Program, He Died Doing What I Love.’ Priceless.

Comedy & Humor, Conservatism, GUNS, Intelligence, Israel, libertarianism, Morality, Political Correctness, Politics

Former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh is an idiot.
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is an idiot.
Ditto Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
Don’t know what’s up with Philip Van Cleave, the Virginian who heads a citizen’s self-defense league. But nobody would exhibit stupidity for the sake of politeness. His dumbness might just be a natural state.
Lobbyist Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America: He certainly convinces one of his studied stupidity.

What did they do?

Obediently they recited the following lines in front of a camera:

“The way to stop a bad guy with a gun… is a good kid with a gun.”

“The intensive three-week Kinderguardian course introduces specially selected children from 12 to 4 years old to pistols, rifles, semiautomatics, and a rudimentary knowledge of mortars. In less than a month — less than a month — a first-grader can become a first-grenade-er. Happy shooting, kids.”

Children under five also have elevated levels of the pheromone Blink-182, produced by the part of the liver known as the Rita Ora. This allows nerve reflexes to travel along the Cardi B neural pathway to the Wiz Khalifa 40% faster.”

Toddlers are pure, uncorrupted by fake news or homosexuality. They don’t care if it’s politically correct to shoot a mentally deranged gunman. They’ll just do it.”

“… children can process images quicker than adults, meaning that, essentially like owls, they can see in slow motion.”

And they’re OK with their interviewer, Sasha Baron Cohen, chiming in on the merits of arming toddler: “My son, may he rest in peace, was in the first program, he died doing what I love. … They try [in the US] to stop 4-year-olds from having guns? What is the logic ???!”

Terribly funny.

But also an object lesson in what politicians would agree to recite and do, to benefit their agenda (good or bad) and their special interests.

In his latest skit, comedic genius Sacha Baron Cohen takes the mickey out of your typical, Fox News, Israeli “anti-terror expert.” His character is called Col. Erran Morad, and he has a recognizably hypnotic effect on US Republicans.

Cohen’s is also the type of satire American comedians no longer do for fear of disobeying the PC police. The reductio ad absurdum is bloody good.

This is certainly a worthy dig at politicians who’re both deeply stupid and will say anything if an Israeli krav maga knucklehead tells them to.

In any event, Cohen didn’t need to work hard to persuade “former and current Republican lawmakers [to endorse] the idea of arming school children as young as four with guns.”

The only honest-to-goodness smart representative was the Republican from Florida, Matt Gaetz. Incredulous, he asked scary Sasha:

“You want me to say on television that I support 3- and 4-year-olds with firearms? Is that what you’re asking me?”

No can do. I don’t think so.

This is wicked funny and good libertarian fun. Sacha Baron Cohen does a public service, exposing the stupid herd of politicians (and one smart one). Now let’s see Cohen mock the Left.

UPDATE I (7/18): Joe Walsh: “Sasha Baron Cohen gets people to say stupid things.”

No. Cohen gets stupid people to say stupid things.

UPDATE II (7/24): Cohen, who first coined the term “crap countries” before “shitholes,” courtesy Trump, needs now to offend the Left.

UPDATE III (7/26):

Republicans are complaining that “Liberals are Outraged Over Obviously Satirical Alexandria Cortez Interview.” That’s legit just as Shasa Baron Cohen’s satire was legit. Why, then, did conservatives bitch about the Cohen skit? The GOP YouTube blond can’t hold a candle to Cohen’s comedy.

This woman is not funny.

UPDATE (8/13): The State Of Cuckservatism: Still Fawning Over Never-Trumper Ben Shapiro

Communism, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Socialism

The other day Ben Shapiro was asked (for some reason) to give comment on Fox News regarding the election of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the female Barack Obama, as Rush Limbaugh calls her. Cortez, a hard-core socialist, “won the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district.”

As is typical of his ideological ilk, all Ben could muster against socialism was that it “doesn’t work.” Not a word about the rights-violating underpinnings of socialism, which make it both wicked AND an economic wrecking ball.

For E-Letter Conservatives (establishmentarians), it all boils down to pragmatism, never principle. Put it this way, if socialism worked—brutal rights-violations and all—cons like Ben would have a tough time arguing against it.

It’s not enough that he’s wrong all the time; the fact that Shapiro might vote for Trump in 2020 has made news. It’s hard not to despair. Sighs Gateway Pundit: “Some Things Never Change… #NeverTrumper Ben Shapiro Argues the Future of Republican Party is Anti-Trump.”

This, as the Europeans move in Trump’s direction.

Says Prof. Paul Gottfried (in an e-mail chat among Old Rightists):

Why the Hell should people on the Right be rejoicing that Ben [Shapiro] and Bill [Maher] love each other? And look how reasonable Ben Shapiro of Fox-news fame is! He favors impeaching Trump if he removes Rosenstein.
What is shocking is not that Shapiro loathes and fears the Right. It’s that he’s the poster boy for the conservative movement. And it’s not his fault. At least partly because the conservative movement doesn’t provide much in the way of conservative discourse. In Austria, Hungary, Italy, etc. there is a serious intellectual Right that enjoys political influence.

Remarks Dr. Clyde Wilson, “This is because ‘the conservative movement’ is based in the Republican party, which eschews (and always has) all ideas not involved in money—or as Mel Bradford put it—they are liberal about everything except money. Or as Rev. Mr. Dabney observed a century and a half ago, Northern conservatives have never conserved anything.”

UPDATE (8/13):

Yucky Cuck:

UPDATED (8/13/018): Liberals View Wild Life As Worthy Only As Part Of A ‘Species,’ A Herd

Conservatism, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Fascism, Left-Liberalism, Paleoconservatism, The West

In trying to console a friend on the passing of his long-time canine companion, the following occurred to me:

Sentimentality about animals is one of the things that separates us from the barbaric civilizations. I include The Left’s world view as part of the “barbaric civilizations.” These sees animals, certainly wild life, as comprising species to sustain, not as individual creatures of God, for which we humans must care.

As related in “Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset”:

A helmeted cyclist once chased me down along a suburban running trail. My sin? I had fed the poor juncos in the dead of winter. (Still do. Bite me, you bully.)

Having caught up with me, SS Cyclist got on his soap box and in my face about my unforgivable, rule-bending. Wasn’t I familiar with the laws governing his pristine environmental utopia?

Didn’t I know that only the fittest deserved to survive? That’s the natural world, according to these ruthless, radical progressive puritans.

Yes, mea culpa for having an exceedingly soft spot for God’s plucky little creatures.

To the extent conservatives behave this way, culling and killing for no reason other than that the individual animal doesn’t conform to a so-called scientific theory—they are behaving like liberals.

Professor Clyde Wilson, a paleoconservative, says about my bird-feeding encounter: “Telling other people not to feed God’s creatures according to some supposed scientific official plan is simply fascism.”

UPDATE (8/13/018):

Liberals equivocate about feeding a distressed, grieving whale, from a dying population.

Leftists Are Convulsing Over A Conservative Court. It Doesn’t Get Better. OK, Maybe It Will.

Conservatism, Constitution, Law, Republicans, The Courts

Quite correct: Republicans have had the chance to consolidate a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and … FAILED, REFUSED, or chose to break bread with the opposition, rather than keep the faith with the base and the original Constitution. As the author of this New York Times Review of Books essay suggests, the “mishaps” of previous republican presidents in appointing justices to the SCOTUS suggest “something less than full-throated judicial conservatism on their part.”

… In retrospect, it is remarkable that a strong conservative majority on the Court has not emerged before now. Since 1980, Republicans have held the presidency for twenty-two years and Democrats for sixteen. Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on the platform of choosing conservative judges, appointed three justices—Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Kennedy—and elevated William Rehnquist to the chief justiceship. That should have established conservative control. Yet O’Connor turned out to be a centrist, controlling the Court for a quarter-century by casting the decisive fifth vote in controversial cases. When she retired in 2006, Kennedy assumed her position as the swing justice and unexpectedly emerged as a liberal hero, voting, for example, to extend constitutional rights to detainees in Guantánamo Bay and marriage rights to same-sex couples.

George H.W. Bush also had the chance to consolidate a conservative majority. He appointed Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall but also replaced William Brennan with David Souter, who underwent a subtle yet significant evolution from Burkean conservative to Burkean liberal. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama each got two justices confirmed, which maintained the Court’s balance. That conservative control has been so long in coming reflects either miscalculation by Reagan and George H.W. Bush or (more likely) something less than full-throated judicial conservatism on their part. …

… THE REST IN “Tipping the Scales by Noah Feldman.”